Kids cost a fortune to raise. Besides, they make you less adaptable to changes. They also increase your risk exposure in the unlikely event of a divorce. Kids are harmful to the environment because overpopulation creates all kinds of ills.

Is there even any tangible upside in having children?

* If you care about genetics, we are all 99.9% identical anyway.
* If you want followers, starting a religion is more practical.
* If you want a small and cute companion, get a pet.
* If you want to keep your surname alive, write a fucking novel. (Or better yet, start an immortal corporation.)

The idiots suing him should be made to pay 10 times the asked for "child support" to the man.

Those Idiots you speak of, are the State of Kansas. I know it's FOX and all, but you should still read it.

The Lezbo couple have since broke up, and the dude of the couple was left with the kids, and she is now ill and unable to work since March of this year. They also adopted 6 Kids, that's 6 freaking kids, as some social experiement while her and her Mangirl set up house and tried to play Man and Wife. One of them grew bored and stuck the other one with all of the crap they created. Just like for realzies. She is now filling for financial aide, and one of the tools States now have to help with welfare of needy Kids, is to go after the Father of the kids, even if the Mother doesn't cooperate. Justice is blind and all of that. Which is WHY it should be VERY important that Liberals think more about the shit they try to ram through in blind legislation. Because you never know when it will bite you in the ass. I can only hope this Clown voted for Obama and has "Legalize gay marriage" T-Shirt.

I'll admit it. Since it was Fox, I didn't read it. That propaganda organization states so many falsehoods that I automatically ignore links to it.

But, ok, so it's not the legal guardians of the child who are at fault. The individual assholes in the Kentucky government who filed the suit each should be made to pay the donor 10 times the amount they asked for. Garnish their wages and throw them in jail if they fail to pay this amount.

Marotta — who has relinquished all parental rights, including financial responsibility, under the 2009 agreement — said he’s preparing for a lengthy legal fight that has already cost him several thousand dollars. He expects it will likely “put a damper on things” for other people considering the same move

The state of Kentucky should also be made to pay this guy's legal fees regardless of the verdict simply for filing this suit. And if they lose, which they should, they should also pay this guy 100 times his legal fees as compensation for the duress he endured.

Here's a solution: Don't donate your sperm. There are plenty of kids that need adopting. What a narcissistic practice that is.

The exact same thing can be said about all reproduction regardless of whether or not the sperm was donated.

True, but if you control who the sperm is going into then you have no excuses later. Assuming your putting your sperm into a lady because you are choosing to procreate. If not then you must accept the consequences.

True, but if you control who the sperm is going into then you have no excuses later.

Who said this donor is making excuses? He consented to donating his sperm, not to paying for the child's upbringing. To argue that he "must accept the consequences", whatever undisclosed consequences you are implying, is like arguing that a woman who dresses provocatively deserves to get raped. It's a completely bogus argument.

Consent to be a DNA donor is not consent to be a financial donor. The legal financial liability rests solely in the legal guardians who agreed to raise the child at their expense. The "consequences" were spelled out explicitly and precisely in a black-and-white contract.

The state has no right to demand any money from the donor, period. The state is simply trying to use the violence of the state to extort money from someone. This should be illegal.

I decided to not have kids several years ago and had a vasectomy. I still think it's one of the best decisions of my life.

A couple of months ago I came across my ex wife at the grocery store. We divorced 20+ years ago, part of it due to my reluctance to have kids right away (I was still "on the fence" at that time).

After the divorce, I chose to put the lion's share of my time, energy and dollars into getting my college education culminating in my Master's (I'm not waving my own flag here, its just that I don't know if I would have pulled-off my GPA let alone do it at all had I opted for children). Promply after graduation I secured a Professional career, which I'm still happily engaged in.

One of the things that struck me in my years at college were the plethora of harried-looking single Mothers trying to balance single life, kids and college. I tutored many of them and got the inside scoop on the soul-sucking lifestyle most of them led-which really opened my eyes.

So I see my wife at the grocery store a couple months back, and she looked about 10 years beyond her age. A lot of pain in her eyes and utterly exhausted looking. She then confided in me that her two Daughters were hopelessly addicted to drugs, one in rehab, the other they were trying to track down to force into rehab. During the conversation, she would remark on how good I looked, which felt nice, but more importantly, bolstered the decision I made years ago; instead of having kids, which I believe is estimated to cost between 150-250K over 18 years (add to that figure for each additional child), I opted the more hedonistic route of economic independence and the freedom it offers.

Some say not having kids is "selfish." I believe people can have kids for "selfish" reasons as well, and am mystified we live in a country where you have to buy a "license" to go catch a fish, but any completely lazy, clueless moron--not fit to raise a hamster let alone a child--can make a baby at will.

I'm not knocking having kids, in fact I believe its probably one of the most rewarding and fulfilling experiences life can offer and am aware that some families are able to live comfortably economically and are able to avoid many of the uncontrollable negatives other families endure from raising kids. Nevertheless, looking at the macro-political-economic environment over the last 30 years, I opted for a different path.

and am mystified we live in a country where you have to buy a "license" to go catch a fish, but any completely lazy, clueless moron--not fit to raise a hamster let alone a child--can make a baby at will.

4) public service announcements showing men losing their shirts to child support.

None of that would decrease the number of kids born, as you are targeting males. Unless you take away the right to reproduce and can enforce sterilization, there will always be one male willing and able to impregnate a thousand women. Nothing less than 100% prevention of all males from reproducing will put a dent in reproduction as the one guy you don't stop will handle all the demand.

If your goal is to lower the birth rate, you have to address female reproductive opportunity and that's a lot less politically acceptable. Nevertheless, it's the only effective strategy as it takes a woman 9 months to produce a child whereas a guy only spends 5 seconds doing his part.

Out of context buddy. I meant if he knowingly puts his sperm in someone then he accepts the consequences.

The consequences, as I stated above, were explicitly listed in the contract and financial commitment was not one of them. The state has no right to impose this after the fact.

It is perfectly legitimate for a man and a woman to agree to reproduce through sperm donation without any other commitment, responsibilities, or rights for the man. If both parties willingly consent, hell seek out, this arrangement, then the state has absolutely no right to interfere with it. In fact, such interference prevents other people in the future from exercising their right to make such an arrangement.

This is where a condom might help! It makes you last longer. Who are you? Charles Bukowski?

You've missed the point entirely. A man who wants to father a thousand children -- certainly not me! -- can easily do so at 5 seconds a pop. And there certainly are plenty of men out there who do want to spread their seed like that. The point is that it only takes a single male with such intentions to completely undo the effectiveness of all of New Renter's proposals.

None of that would decrease the number of kids born, as you are targeting males. Unless you take away the right to reproduce and can enforce sterilization, there will always be one male willing and able to impregnate a thousand women. Nothing less than 100% prevention of all males from reproducing will put a dent in reproduction as the one guy you don't stop will handle all the demand.

That's kind of like saying nobody should buy a fuel efficient car because all it takes is one asshole in an out-of-tune 6 MPG 1970 Olds 455 to undo all the fuel savings of 20 Volt drivers. That the Olds driver will drive that car no matter WHAT the other drivers do so the Volt drivers might as well dump the Volts and buy Hummers for the same price. The Volt driver saves gas, gets a more comfortable car and may even get to use the carpool lane passing the asshole stuck in traffic.

So I see my wife at the grocery store a couple months back, and she looked about 10 years beyond her age. A lot of pain in her eyes and utterly exhausted looking. She then confided in me that her two Daughters were hopelessly addicted to drugs, one in rehab, the other they were trying to track down to force into rehab. During the conversation, she would remark on how good I looked, which felt nice, but more importantly, bolstered the decision I made years ago; instead of having kids, which I believe is estimated to cost between 150-250K over 18 years (add to that figure for each additional child), I opted the more hedonistic route of economic independence and the freedom it offers.

People tell me that I look 10-15 years younger than I am. I make a good salary for my profession, and neither of my kids are in rehab or drug addicted. My point is that the point that you're at in your life might be due to lack of children or it might be in spite of not having children.

I believe that my life is richer because of my kids, and have wonderful memories with them that are more valuable than anything else I own.

They were horrible investments - children are selfish little creatures who are want lots of stuff, and as a parent you get it for them. And here's the kicker - you actually want to get it for them. In fact, you go out of the way to get them stuff, and pay them attention and give them your time even if you don't have it. You go to events that they're interested in or participating in, and you pretend to enjoy the movies they love and...

Well, I think you get the point. Kids are awesome.

But if you don't want them, don't have them. The lawsuit for the sperm donor is bullshit, because the guy didn't participate in the process and had no relationship with the women involved. He shouldn't be held responsible at all.

Yes, children are for most a financial burden and from that standpoint a poor investment. They also crimp and determine much of your social life for years. They bring every cold and flu home and spread it to you and their siblings. the list of negatives goes on and on.

In the end they can change you by bringing you out of your world of vanity and self love to something different in your relationship with another person. This relationship must be experienced to be understood it goes beyond the love one might experience with a lover, it is of a different level. So if you are satisfied with your life and don't want to change don't have children

However, children also provide something else that has virtually no downside, cannot be acquired without them, and are truly wonderful. The payback for the burden imposed by raising children...grandchildren.

An Arizona couple seeking a divorce hit an unusual snag that could prevent the marriage from legally being dissolved.

A judge is questioning whether a same-sex marriage ban bars him from ending the union — or even recognizing its validity — because the husband was born a woman and underwent a sex change but retained female reproductive organs and gave birth to three children.

Thomas and Nancy Beatie are eager to end their nine-year marriage. But their divorce plans stalled when Maricopa County Family Court Judge Douglas Gerlach said in late June that he was unable to find any legal authority defining a man as someone who can give birth. Gerlach has questioned whether the union was a same-sex marriage.

Those Idiots you speak of, are the State of Kentucky. I know it's FOX and
all, but you should still read it.

Perhaps-but Kentucky is not a hotbed of liberalism and neither is Kansas. Here in Kansas, they were suing a 19 year army veteran for child support. The poor guy was married back in 1995 and wifeee cheated on him and had a baby with another man. He divorced, proved by DNA that child was not his and married again and had 3 kids. Never had a relationship with that kid. But the first wife went on welfare and kansas is suing him for child support -because of "presumed" fatherhood. That is the law and I believe it is the same in FL too?? They were reforming the law in kansas, and I think this sperm donor law needs to be reformed too.

Now in the liberal CA, it ain't so-if it ain't your baby and you prove it-you don't pay. While you might be happy about gay or staright or Obummer-it simply is not right.

I think the US has turned into a family hostile culture that makes it impossible for grown ups and kids to simply be co-present in any meaningful way. When I was little, not so very long ago, work for a lot of people ended at 2 PM. I didn't remark on it then, but trundling down to after school activities, I was surrounded by grown ups. At the one activity I participated in from age 8 until 14 in one neighborhood where I grew up, there were adults all over the place, talking to us, criticizing us, ignoring us and reading books, telling us about the day at work during breaks, making fun of us, etc. Afterwards, we'd all trundle home where at least one parent had a job that had them home by 3 or 4, after we got home. The late arriving parent would be home at 5:30 or 6 and lights out for the kiddos would be 10 or 11. So outside of school hours, kids could count on like 8 hours of just glomming around with grown ups and their own parents, providing all sorts of orienting and informative and moderating influences.

Now?

Good luck. Everything has been defunded or privately organized and requires parental transport which isn't available until after an hour that makes it impossible for the kids to attend. And the parents are so wound up by their inability to satisfy the needs of the shareholders and general time starvation they show up beleaguered or get into fights.

instead of "investing" $250K in a child, put that money in a mutual fund, and use the interest to pay someone to come to your house once/twice a week to talk to you when you are older. you would get more bang for your buck. he/she may even clean the house for you.

that and "investing" in a marriage is like buying a stock whose company has a 50% chance of going bankrupted.